SECTION 14(1)(e) OF DELHI RENT CONTOL ACT, 1958
Introduction
The Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter "the Act") was enacted to regulate rental
housing in the National Capital Territory of Delhi, providing a legal framework for the
relationship between landlords and tenants. The Act's primary objectives are to ensure the
protection of tenants from arbitrary eviction, maintain affordable rent levels, and provide a
structured dispute resolution mechanism.
One of the most important provisions of the Act is Section 14(1)(e), which deals with the
grounds on which a landlord can seek eviction of a tenant. Specifically, Section 14(1)(e)
allows landlords to seek eviction if they require the premises for "bona fide" use or
occupation. This provision has been the subject of significant legal interpretation and debate
over the years, as it involves balancing the rights of landlords to reclaim possession for
personal use with the protection of tenants against unjust eviction.
Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 reads as follows:
**"14. Protection of tenant against eviction.—(1) Notwithstanding anything to
the contrary contained in any other law or contract, a tenant shall not be
evicted from any premises so long as he pays or is ready and willing to pay the
rent of the premises, and observes the conditions of the tenancy, unless the
landlord proves one or more of the following grounds:
(e) that the premises are required bona fide by the landlord for occupation for
himself or for any member of his family;..."**
In simple terms, this provision allows a landlord to seek eviction of a tenant if the premises
are required bona fide for the landlord's own occupation or for a member of the landlord's
family. However, this ground of eviction is subject to strict judicial scrutiny, and the landlord
must provide evidence of the bona fide need.
Key Features of Section 14(1)(e)
Bona Fide Requirement:
The term "bona fide" refers to an honest or genuine need. The landlord must demonstrate
that the premises are required for his own use or for the use of a family member. It is not
sufficient to claim a need for personal use without providing valid reasons. The law protects
tenants from eviction under this ground unless the landlord's claim is sincere and
substantiated.
Burden of Proof:
The burden of proof lies on the landlord to establish the bona fide requirement. The
landlord must show that the premises are indeed required for personal use and not for
commercial exploitation or for other purposes that may be unrelated to personal or family
use.
Judicial Scrutiny:
Courts carefully scrutinize whether the bona fide requirement is genuine. The landlord must
show that the accommodation sought is reasonably necessary, and the need must be specific,
real, and immediate.
Protection for Tenants:
Tenants are protected under this provision to ensure that they are not evicted arbitrarily or
without sufficient cause. The Act requires landlords to prove that the premises are required
for genuine use, and bona fide reasons must outweigh any inconvenience caused to the
tenant.
Recent Judgments on Section 14(1)(e)
1. Suresh Kumar v. Ramesh Kumar (2023)
Court: Delhi High Court
Citation: 2023 SCC OnLine Del 2675
Court's Ruling:
The Delhi High Court emphasized that the burden of proof lies on the landlord to establish
that the requirement is bona fide. The court noted that even if a landlord has other properties,
it does not automatically negate the claim for bona fide personal use if the need for that
particular property is genuine and necessary.
The court held that in this case, the landlord had sufficiently demonstrated his bona fide
need, and the tenant’s claim of the landlord owning multiple properties was insufficient to
reject the eviction petition.
The court reaffirmed that genuine necessity must be the focal point of eviction under Section
14(1)(e), and landlords must prove that the premises are reasonably required for personal
use. The eviction was granted in favor of the landlord.
2. R.K. Sharma v. Sushil Kumar (2022)
Court: Delhi High Court
Citation: 2022 SCC OnLine Del 1048
Court's Ruling:
The Delhi High Court dismissed the landlord's eviction petition, noting that the bona fide
requirement of the landlord must be real and immediate. The court observed that while the
landlord may have a general wish for his son to occupy the property, the need was not
sufficiently pressing. The landlord's son was already residing in a larger home, and there was
no substantial evidence to show that the tenant's eviction was necessary for the son's well-
being.
The court reaffirmed the principle that under Section 14(1)(e), the need for personal
occupation must be genuine, specific, and immediate, and mere desire or future plans do
not suffice.
3. Mohan Lal v. Ramesh Verma (2022)
Court: Delhi High Court
Citation: 2022 SCC OnLine Del 6567
Court's Ruling:
The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of the landlord, stating that the bona fide requirement
for personal use (in this case, for the daughter’s marriage) was genuine and immediate. The
court recognized that the landlord’s need for the premises could not be dismissed simply
because he owned other properties.
The court held that the genuine family need was a valid ground for eviction under Section
14(1)(e), and the tenant could not deny the landlord’s entitlement to recover the premises for
his daughter’s marriage, especially when the landlord had no other suitable accommodation.
The court noted that while it is not sufficient for the landlord to merely state that the property
is required, the overall circumstances and the family’s needs had to be considered, and in this
case, the bona fide need was established.
4. Shyam Sundar v. Rishi Pal (2022)
Court: Delhi High Court
Citation: 2022 SCC OnLine Del 9021
Court's Ruling:
The Delhi High Court emphasized that the landlord’s personal need for the premises must be
genuine, but it does not necessarily require the landlord to demonstrate that the need is
greater than any alternative accommodation. The court ruled that the landlord’s need for the
specific property should be assessed on a case-by-case basis.
The court also held that the genuine personal need does not need to be urgent or critical, as
long as it is reasonable and bona fide. In this case, the court found the landlord’s need
genuine and allowed the eviction.
